|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 05/24/2004 : 11:39:18
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5051818/
Kinda interesting.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2004 : 16:44:29 [Permalink]
|
And parking is still a bitch, here at the apartments!
 |
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2004 : 21:12:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5051818/
Kinda interesting.
Indeed. I knew the space between galaxy-clusters were being stretched, but it never occurred to me that this stretch would inflate the size of the universe in the way the article describes. It makes perfect sense though. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2004 : 10:49:56 [Permalink]
|
Ummm..., so if the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, wouldn't that mean it has expaned at faster than light speed?  |
 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2004 : 12:26:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by NubiWan
Ummm..., so if the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, wouldn't that mean it has expaned at faster than light speed?
Yes. to a point. The way I've been able to get my noggin around it is to imagine three balled up pieces of cloth adjacent to one another in a line these we'll call galactic clusters. Now imagine them expanding and shoving one another away from themselves. From a static observer on the leftmost sheet, it would appear that an object on the rightmost sheet is moving faster than the middle sheet when in reality they are all expanding at the same rate.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
thecor
New Member
Italy
27 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2004 : 22:26:28 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Gerald Schroeder uses this same "compound interest" concept to reconcile the perceived age of the universe to the six literal days of creation in his book 'THE SCIENCE OF GOD'. I have found at least one discrepancy, ie:land plants in genesis on day three but on the Schroeder scale not until day five. The math Dr. Schroeder uses is valid and based on accepted values for the age, and expansion rate, of the universe as of the time of the writing (1998). As Dr. Schroeder puts it: If you were standing at the point of the initial explosion and were to flash a light once every second, and an observer were standing next to the source, then the flashes would be received every second. Now, as the observer moves away from the source (as a consequence of the expansion of the universe), the photon would necessarily take longer to reach the observer. If the observer is now one light year from the source, the current pulse would take a year to be received. The very next pulse would take a year also, PLUS the additional time necessay to cover the distance the observer has moved in that second. Assuming the expansion rate to be 1/10th the speed of light,(the current rate of expansion is a known value, however it has been shown to be neither linear nor constant thruout the history of the universe so 1/10th is used for the ease of the math), the observer would have moved 18,600 miles and the incomming photon would then take one year PLUS 1/10 second. Not a significant value in this example, but a measurable value indeed, and when talking about the 'real' values for the expansion rate and some 13 billion years of time, the differences would be significant. Dr. Schroeder's years for each 'day' are as follows: day one: zero to 0.25BYA; day two: 0.25 to 0.75BYA; day three: 0.75-1.75BYA; day four:1.75-3.75BYA; day five:3.75-7.75 BYA; day six:7.75 to 15.5BYA. The total span here being 15.5 billion years and in close agreement with current theorectical age of 13.7 billion.
I would submit that the numbers would match much more closely if the currently accepted expansion process and age of the universe were applied. (Again I will leave the math to those more capable[thanks again Dave])
I hope Dr. Schroeder's example helps. |
| Edited by - thecor on 05/27/2004 00:42:43 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2004 : 19:40:55 [Permalink]
|
| Sorry, thecor, but I'm just confused by this. If Dr. Schroeder's "BYA" means "billions of years ago," then it seems to me that Genesis runs backwards. If it means "billions of years after [the Big Bang]," then he's got the entire history of this solar system in day six, land plant evolution be damned. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2004 : 21:55:59 [Permalink]
|
I can understand why there are people who feel the need to reconcile cosmology, the history of our solar system, and biological evolution with the Biblical Genesis account.
Personally though, I think it is a mistake. What is being proposed is taking several scientific theories and making them into pseudo-science.
I object to that.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 05/27/2004 21:56:25 |
|
|
|
thecor
New Member
Italy
27 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2004 : 00:40:56 [Permalink]
|
My apologies!
I did indeed reverse the spans!. (Should I edit the post?) Thank you for catching that DAve.
Dr. Mabuse wrote:
"What is being proposed is taking several scientific theories and making them into pseudo-science."
I strongly disagree with that statement. If one theory supports another, does that not make the accepted theory stronger?
Perhaps I put too much information in the post. It appears that one or two points were selected for discussion, but the central point, relative time measurements, was not addressed.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2004 : 07:34:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by thecor
Dr. Mabuse wrote:
"What is being proposed is taking several scientific theories and making them into pseudo-science."
I strongly disagree with that statement. If one theory supports another, does that not make the accepted theory stronger?
I classify the Biblical Genesis account as myth. There's nothing scientific about it, no evidence that support that it really happened anywhere than in the mind of the author. That's why I use Occam's Razor. The biblical account does not add anything, but is superfluous.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
thecor
New Member
Italy
27 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2004 : 08:13:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by thecor
Dr. Mabuse wrote:
"What is being proposed is taking several scientific theories and making them into pseudo-science."
I strongly disagree with that statement. If one theory supports another, does that not make the accepted theory stronger?
I classify the Biblical Genesis account as myth. There's nothing scientific about it, no evidence that support that it really happened anywhere than in the mind of the author. That's why I use Occam's Razor. The biblical account does not add anything, but is superfluous.
[/quote]
I cetainly concur that the bible is mythological in nature, but it has been my experience that most, if not all myth is based in some fact. Assuming this premise, than there may be kernals of truth which we should dig out to use to determine what is indeed true. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2004 : 08:53:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by thecor
I cetainly concur that the bible is mythological in nature, but it has been my experience that most, if not all myth is based in some fact. Assuming this premise, than there may be kernals of truth which we should dig out to use to determine what is indeed true.
That seems like a subject to discuss in the Religions-forum. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 10:49:14 [Permalink]
|
Just trying to figure the % of the universe that we can see from earth
Assumptions made,
The universe is roughly spherical
The distance to the farthest object we can see, 13billion LY
The estimated diameter of the universe 156billion LY
[4/3]x[pi]x[radius cubed]=sphere volume.
So if someone could check my math I get roughly 0.5% of the universe that we can see from earth.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 11:12:27 [Permalink]
|
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Just trying to figure the % of the universe that we can see from earth
Assumptions made,
The universe is roughly spherical
The distance to the farthest object we can see, 13billion LY
The estimated diameter of the universe 156billion LY
[4/3]x[pi]x[radius cubed]=sphere volume.
So if someone could check my math I get roughly 0.5% of the universe that we can see from earth.
[/quote]
I believe that the current model assumes the universe to be more or less flat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm
Your math is good, it just doesn't take into account the expansion of the universe. If the universe was statically 156 billion LY, we would only be able to see 0.5% of it.
' Imagine the universe just a million years after it was born, Cornish suggests. A batch of light travels for a year, covering one light-year. "At that time, the universe was about 1,000 times smaller than it is today," he said. "Thus, that one light-year has now stretched to become 1,000 light-years."' -- Neil Cornish, astrophysicist at Montana State University from the Space.com article.
We see the light from these very young, yet far away, systems because they started moving towards us when they were much, much closer.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 08/13/2004 11:13:04 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 11:55:48 [Permalink]
|
That besides the point, the calculations dont apply to 13 billion years ago. Now the universe is a set size and now we can see a set distance.
Im not saying we arnt farther from galaxies now than we were then, just how much can we see, NOW?
The flat universe thing is not a common assumption so I dont use it.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2004 : 12:11:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
That besides the point, the calculations dont apply to 13 billion years ago. Now the universe is a set size and now we can see a set distance.
Im not saying we arnt farther from galaxies now than we were then, just how much can we see, NOW?
The flat universe thing is not a common assumption so I dont use it.
Considering the light is 13.5 billion years old, the way the universe was back then is germaine. The universe is still expanding. It's isn't a set size. The article seems to indicate that the galaxies we see at the edge of optics may very well be much farther away than the age of the light. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
